Islam killed countless numbers of my people. My most primal instincts make me want to hate Islam and everything it stands for. But love, on the other hand, compels me to tolerate the faith of individual Muslims. Which urge is more correct?

Islam killed countless numbers of my people. My most primal instincts make me want to hate Islam and everything it stands for. But love, on the other hand, compels me to tolerate the faith of individual Muslims. Which urge is more correct?

Peace.

Islam has killed millions of Orthodox, other christians, and even their own people in a craze to be islamic. I'ts fnny and sad because many ppl I've spoken to about Islam have told me that Islam today is full of radicalism but the "true" Islam, aka Mohammed's Islam was all about peace, love, and justice. Why then, whenever I think about Islam, I have this bloddy image in my mind of hordes of armies spreading west to Egypt, Constantinople, Syria, and destroying everything, killing or forcing ppl to convert?? History repeats itself and many ppl in the west (at least where I live) are ignorant about this fact. One muslim kid in my relig. class 3 years ago even told the class that Mohammed told his troops to respect all life, even to not trample upon leaves. Complete BS, the very word "troops" reveals a kind of thuggish hooliganism.

Seriously though.There is NO ONE the Muslims fear in the West. They feared the Impaler.

Wait till the Chinese overtake the West as the Imperial power in the world. Do you think they will take one iota of crap from the Muslims? It almost makes me wish to hasten the day of their surpassing the West, just to see them kick some Muslim butt!

Well it won't be butt-kicking. It will be some serious retaliation (Arab anilhilation) with no concern for condemnation by weak academics and media elite. They will take care of their own and that will be that.

I'm sure the Arab Christians here will rejoice in your use of the term "Arab anihilation" even if they and we know what you probably meant. I may be happy to see Muslims conquered, but I will be sad if Arab culture is destroyed. I tend to like it. Besides, Muslims are people, too. Most of them go to work and live a normal life just like you or me. They deserve to hear about Christ and are loved by him just as much as me or you.

In the dark ages, it was Arabs who preserved civilization. What would we have left of classic learning, such as Plato and Aristotle, if Arabs hadn't preserved it? Where would mathematics be without Euclid? And it's true that there have been Arab Christians from the beginning of the Christian faith.

Broad-sword use of the word, Arab, duly noted and now apologizing for.

It is easy to forget Christian brethren in Arab lands and that is wrong. I am sorry for that.

There is a world-wide cultural war going on, initiated by radical Islam. Even Russia has to deal with it. Historically Christian lands and cultures (even if they currently are only nominally Christian, like the US) are the targets of radical Islam.

They will bring harm on their moderate Muslim, secular and Christian countrymen.

Western culture may very well go down in flames. Not by the radical Muslims (although they will claim victory) but by its own weakness, corruption and immorality.

The competing cultures will be that of China vs. Islamic culture.If radical Islam wants to engage the battle with them, it will awaken a tiger it really doesn't wish to tangle with.

The West has difficulty defending itself, due to its own self-doubt, political correctness and the vulnerability of its economy and open borders to serious retaliation, not to mention dependence on oil. That won't be a problem for China.

If anyone flies a plane into one of their buildings, they will retaliate with thoroughness and not alot of consideration for collateral damage and casualties. They have the population to occupy - not to build democracy, but to secure the oil for themselves. Again, they won't be there to win a kindness contest in world opinion.

So, if radical Islam ever takes on the Chinese, to borrow a song title from Pink Floyd, "Run Like Hell."

Timos is correct regarding the track record of Islam with regard to Christians and even its own people.

His post prompted my Vlad Tepes reference. He was Orthodox and sometimes Catholic and a full time heretic. But Vlad the Impaler stopped the Muslim advance at Romania. The West developed technology (gun powder - which ironically, Marco Polo brought back from the Chinese) and then were able to defeat the Muslims at the Gates of Vienna (there is a blog now of that title). The Moors got kicked out of Spain and the Muslim advance was stopped and contained.

Unfortunately they were able to keep Constantinople and Hagia Sophia. They were pushed out but not pushed back far enough.

Islam is probably a thoroughly ethnocentric religion, which could be why Muslims only consider the Koran divinely inspired when in Arabic. Muhammad, rather than founding a new religion, united his people through war under the pretext of religion.

I think Islam, at the very core of it, is simply an Arab nationalistic movement. Muhammad, along with all other 7th century pagan Arabs, were stuck between the two great empires: Byzantium and Persia. In order to rally his people up so that he too may be able to rival these empires, Islam was formed - with helps and influences from those religions in said empires. By this influence, he was able to institute a super-religion, one that took on influences from the faiths of al-Kitab - yet surpassing them (from his standpoint of course) in both the profane and the divine.

Of course. There is no justification within [Orthodox] Christianity to suggest we have the power to limit other peoples' right to practice their religion freely. Christianity is far from, in the Gospel, an earthly-theocratic government. And to stoop down to the tyrannical lows Shari'a exhibits would betray the very "Kingdom of God" our Lord speaks of.

But again, if the practice of Islam within our country poses no threat to our Republic, then Muslims deserve the right to freely worship.

The cultural values, ideals, and practices of Islam are a direct threat to the security and well-being of this Republic. This has already been manifestly demonstrated when Mohammedans from an allied country took it upon themselves to attack this Republic for religious and cultural reasons; the attacks against Christianity throughout the history of Islam are too numerous to count. Furthermore, it is not only we who are targeted the Hindu and Buddhist peoples have not fared any better. Consider even in recent years the destruction of Ancient Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan, an atrocity not only against Buddhism but against the human race. Islam is not only a threat to this Republic, it is a threat to civilization, enlightenment, and humanity whereever it is found.

Moderate muslims are not the product of the Islamic religion. They are abberations.

Cornelius Van Til, a Presbytrerian theologian of a generation ago at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia developed "presuppositional" apologetics, a way of doing Christian apologetics that gets at the presuppositions of other belief systems and shows how a person just cannot live out those presuppositions consistently because God has not made us or the universe that way, He has made it and us according to divine revelation in scripture (remember for a moment, that as a Presbyterian, he didn't accept Holy Tradition). Therefore only Christian presuppositions really suppport they way things are and the way we are because they are in tune with God's revelation and how he made us and the universe.

The presuppositions of Islam are militant and nationalsitic (pan-Arab muslim nationalism).The muslims who are not a threat to our Republic because they believe in democracy, religious freedom, individual rights, etc. are "happily inconsistent" with their religion. If they ever face its presuppositions, they will need to become secular or Christians. They can't consistently remain muslims.

What people in the West don't want to admit, and what Eastern Orthodox people know historically and instinctively, is that muslim radicals are consistent with the presuppositions of their religion. They get it "right" so to speak. That's why they and their religion are a real threat to the West. Political Correctness on this issue will continue to make the West a victim of radical islamic extremes and violence.

Regarding the clerics, just as one has no right to yell "fire" in a crowded building, although they have the right to practice their religion in this country, the do NOT have an absolute right to practice it anywhere, anyhow they want so as to infringe on the rights of others and create anxiety in travellers.

If you HAVE to pray at a certain hour, book a flight so as not to need to pray at the airport.

What if they had been in the air? Are the stewards and stewardesses supposed to stop what they are doing so muslim clerics can kneel in the aisles and pray? Is everyone supposed to not go to the bathroom till their prayers are done because they are taking up aisle space?

Of course not!If their religion allows an exigency for that scenario, it could allow it for being in an airport in the US, waiting for a flight.

They were grandstanding. It was in-your-face -- either, "we're gonna do this and you'll just have to suck up and deal with it, America."or, "we'll be stopped and it will be, 'oh, those poor muslims can't practice their faith'" and maybe the ACLU will get involved.

I cannot believe we are debating the issue of others having the right of freedom of worship!

We aren't (most of us aren't anyway) as that was never the question in this case. The "clerics" got into trouble for creating a public spectacle inside the secure area of an airport and being confrontational on an aircraft.

If you think they were targeted because of their religion, you try pulling what they did and see what happens.

More info comes out: "Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials."

And more info comes out (for those of you paying attention): "Flight attendants said they were concerned that the way the imams took seats that were not assigned to them -- two seats in the front row of first class, exit seats in the middle of the plane and two seats in the rear -- resembled the pattern used by September 11 hijackers, giving them control of the exits."

For the record, I've seen people get ejected from an America West (which operates now as US Airways) flight just for taking a first class seat that wasn't theirs.

Trust Matthew to take the bait and switch into liberal do-gooder mode. We cannot be sure about exactly what happened on that plane. What we do know is that the action was taken by a private company, and that Muslims are free to 'acknowledge God in public places'. Frankly I would hope you had better things to do with your time, you only seem to get your knickers in a twist about topics which are either divisive or irrelevant to Orthodox Christians.

Ancient Greek and other classical texts survived patially due to the Arabs. In the middle ages in europe, Catholic Cathedral chapters and monasteries had schools which studied these subjects-although yes, sometimes supressed by various church o civil authority- but still, if you ask any 10 random people- today in the west vs. Arab for example, most probably, very few of the 10 on either side would've read the Illiad for example, although most would've heard about it (in their own respective lingual titles).

As for the comment about muslim clerics praying in plane aisles- I though it would be funny if say on Olympic Air, a priest and bunch of people, decided to have a Liturgy with the priest using the first-class door as the altar, with icons on either side, and the rest of the plane as the nave- tacky I know. The incense would be unbearable at such an altitude.

Unfortunately they were able to keep Constantinople and Hagia Sophia. They were pushed out but not pushed back far enough.

Speaking of which, Pope Benedict just returned from "Turkey". When in Europe, he condemned Turkey from joining the EU and accidentally hurts Muslim's feelings by quoting a Byzantine emperor from some centuries ago--we'd better be careful from quoting other's opinions from now on in front of Muslims. Then, when he gets to Asia Minor, he's welcomed at a Mass attended by 200 ppl (the smallest attended Papal event ever recorded supposedly), one of which is Patriarch Barthlomew and he suddenly approves Turkey's bid to joining the EU and that Islam is a peaceful religion...I hope it's all just lip service. The news had said that his visit with Bartholomew was closely watched by Turkish officials- I guess they don't want the Patriarch to tell the Pope of what really goes on there. Does anyone know how the bid to get back Agia Sophia's going?

I think that's funny about liturgy on a plane at 30,000 feet or whatever they fly at!

Here's the problem, in my opinion with Islam, political correctness and multiculturalism (I know, a pretty sweeping statement and aiming at quite large and disparate targets):

the Roman Pope cannot pray at Hagia Sophia because it might upset muslims (and the liberal media) but muslim clerics dare not be prevented from making a public spactacle of their prayers in an airport (of all places, keeping in mind 9-11).

Or rather, they either have pretended they were peaceful, or they weren't devout at all. Why do polls, even by agencies sympathetic to the Muslim community, consistently show overwhelming support among everyday Muslims for such things as violent resistence in Iraq, the destruction of Israel, and the imposition of at least some tenets of sharia (such as criminalizing the "defamation" of Muhammad)?

Or rather, they either have pretended they were peaceful, or they weren't devout at all. Why do polls, even by agencies sympathetic to the Muslim community, consistently show overwhelming support among everyday Muslims for such things as violent resistence in Iraq, the destruction of Israel

Iraqi citizens have the right to fight against violations of their national sovereignty. Furthermore, when it comes to Israel, I'm sure you'd also be rather angry, and perhaps even resort to violence, if a whole race of people invaded your land, took your home, and forced you into a ghetto. The Jewish people have no racial superiority, and they lost the land of Israel when they rejected Christ. From an Orthodox Christian perspective, not that of a premillennial dispensationalist, the nation of Israel has no inherent right to exist.

Iraqi citizens have the right to fight against violations of their national sovereignty. Furthermore, when it comes to Israel, I'm sure you'd also be rather angry, and perhaps even resort to violence, if a whole race of people invaded your land, took your home, and forced you into a ghetto. The Jewish people have no racial superiority, and they lost the land of Israel when they rejected Christ. From an Orthodox Christian perspective, not that of a premillennial dispensationalist, the nation of Israel has no inherent right to exist.

No Orthodox Christian perspective includes blowing yourself up in a marketplace and killing a bunch of random women and children going along their daily business. Notice that I didn't say that Muslims support the transformation of Israel into a more democratic state -- which is what you seem to seek and which would be objectionable -- they support the killing of oneself and civilians to satisfy their peculiar ideas of justice.

they support the killing of oneself and civilians to satisfy their peculiar ideas of justice.

Suicide bombing appears to be an act of desperation. If they had more sophisticated militaries and weaponry, and a world willing to care about their struggle, I'm not certain that they would resort to suicide bombing.

Suicide bombing appears to be an act of desperation. If they had more sophisticated militaries and weaponry, and a world willing to care about their struggle, I'm not certain that they would resort to suicide bombing.

It's not an act of desperation - it's an act that displays resolve and is intended specifically to intimidate the opponent by disrupting the flow of daily life for the civilian. They do in fact have more sophisticated militaries and weaponry than suicide bombers (altough their combined military forces are not "more sophisticated" than Israel's - there are one 2 or 3 militaries in the world that are) but chose suicide bombings and using their own countrymen as human shields to send a message and play on the emotions of the Industrialized nations.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Good point Cleveland. An imam here in Australia was admonished a while ago for expressing sympathy for suicide bombers. In response to the rebuke dished out by politicians and the media, he tried to argue that he was not advocating suicide bombing, but rather considering the alleged reality that these suicide bombers are acting out of desparation; their so-called desparate acts being the alleged product of the alleged psychological pain and suffering caused by the Israelis. As you've astutely noted however, that's complete B.S. Suicide bombing is not an act of desparation, it is a strategically planned and theologically motivated act of terror.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 06:52:18 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

As you've astutely noted however, that's complete B.S. Suicide bombing is not an act of desparation, it is a strategically planned and theologically motivated act of terror.

Quote

Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s religions... . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (p. 4). "The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism," he argues; it is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (pp. 79-80). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape#On_suicide_terrorism

Vlad Tepes was not Orthodox but a pragmatic politician who played both Rome and Constantinople to his advantage, first favoring one, then the other. When he finally became Christian, it was RC.

He was also far less involved in halting Muslim expansion than was his cousin St. Stephen the Great of Moldova, who wasn't a heretic and who didn't ever convert to the RCC. In fact, Vlad was deposed at one point and replaced by a weak Hungarian puppet then reinstated by Stephen precisely because he needed a staunch ally to the south who would help against the Turks.

You rather overplay the not a Christian card. Nominally, at least, Vlad Tepes was always a Christian. He was raised Orthodox and later courted Rome for political advantage, which never came. He did convert to the RCC, it is true, but to the best of my knowledge died reconciled to the Orthodox church and was buried in an Orthodox monastery. There's also the famous episode of him nailing papal envoys' hats to their heads, which pretty much shows what his attitude towards Rome was later in life. Certainly, he was a politician and never more than nominally Christian, but it's not correct to paint him as an RC convert.

It's certainly not another Vlad that we need, but another Stefan cel Mare. He was devout in his faith, protector and patron of the Church and unified his people, destroying the corruption of the Boyars in the process. As the saying goes, 'He found a nation of clay and left a nation of stone'. A similar figure would be very welcome now (and the countries weakened by decades of communist corruption actually find themselves in rather a similar situation to 15th century Moldova).

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Suicide bombing appears to be an act of desperation. If they had more sophisticated militaries and weaponry, and a world willing to care about their struggle, I'm not certain that they would resort to suicide bombing.

Then why don't oppressed Christians use it?

By the way, has anyone noticed that the reports of suicide bombings in Israel have dropped in the past couple of years? Saddam Hussein would pay $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. When his monetary support was cut, the supply of bombers seems to have withered.

Over the past two years, I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others, but excludes attacks authorized by a national government (like those by North Korean agents against South Korea). The data show that there is far less of a connection between suicide terrorism and religious fundamentalism than most people think.

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause... Three general patterns in the data support these conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks - 301 of the 315 in the period I studied - took place as part of organized political or military campaigns. Second, democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades. Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: from Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/11187/printer

Whilst your first sentence is undoubtedly true, I'm not sure about the second. I lived through the mainland bombing campaign of the IRA, my father's barracks were bombed, a fair number of kids at my school had lost parents or other relatives to the IRA, I was in earshot of the bombing of the Royal Marines music school in Deal and a family friend was injured in Manchester. I can't recall a single suicide attack by the IRA. Would you care to provide some evidence for this assertion?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

In Northern Ireland, in the early 1990s, as part of the Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997, the IRA used the tactic it called the "proxy bomb" - a sort of involuntary suicide bomb, where a victim was kidnapped and forced to drive a car bomb into its target. In one infamous operation in Derry in 1990, the PIRA chained a Catholic civilian to a car laden with explosives, held his family hostage and forced him to drive to a British Army checkpoint as a "human bomb" where the bomb exploded, killing himself and five soldiers. This practice was stopped due to the revulsion its caused among the Irish nationalist community.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack

Quote

A grisly IRA technique used in the early 1990s was the "proxy bomb" -a sort of involuntary suicide bomb, where a victim was kidnapped and forced to drive a car bomb into its target. In one infamous operation in Derry in October 1990, the PIRA chained a Catholic civilian to a car laden with explosives, held his family hostage and forced him to drive to an Army checkpoint as a "human bomb" where the bomb exploded, killing himself and five soldiers. Another "human bomb" killed one soldier the same day, but the driver saved his own life by jumping from the moving car. This practice was stopped due to the revulsion its caused among the nationalist community. http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969-1997

If a group of Hindu Marxists is responsible for having the largest number of suicide attacks, then perhaps Islamic fundamentalism isn't the primary reason for suicide bombing. What makes the Palestinian bombers and IRA alike, other than their violent actions, is that their land was taken away from them.